said Dean would be their choice for the Dem. presidential nomination, he would be so easy to defeat. Claimed he spoke outrageously about the issues. They were working all the angles. Many dems seem to believe this propaganda and made sure Dean was out. No dem. has been outspoken since. We are playing into the repubs hands, of course along with the media who gives them all the help they need.

Off subject. Is Alito getting some real pressure from the liberal groups? Seems there is more rumbling over Alito than Roberts. I am hearing concise reasons why Alito is so very wrong for the SC.

...so Clinton's credibility regarding Iraq is no better than Bush's or Blair's. When you get right down to it, Clinton is responsible for killing more Iraqis than Bush by a probable factor of 10, so I'll take anything Clinton says regarding the motives for invading Iraq with a big grain of salt.

much in the way of a military that could attack anyone in the area, Kuwait, Iran, etc. The Kurds had new freedom due to the no fly zone in the North, same for the Shites. Well, the Shites (sp?) were massacred right after we left Iraq when bush 1 told them to overthrow Saddam, he would give them support, which was a big lie and thousands were killed.

...yet Clinton maintained the sanctions for his entire presidency, EVEN THOUGH IRAQ WAS NO LONGER A THREAT TO ANYONE. Read the Ritter interview posted elsewhere in this thread. The blood of 500,000 children-- and an additional 500,000 other Iraqi civilians-- is largely on Bill Clinton's hands.

maybe he would have become a threat? Hell, I don't know, Iran is a bigger threat now. If we had left Saddam alone those 2 countries could have started attacking each other again using up all their money on bombs and bullets. Crazy world.

Ritter makes a lot of sense. Ritter never explains what the consequences might have been if we had left iraq in the 90's.

While you don't mention shrub in your post, it seems that you are tacitly comparing Clinton with the current situation in Iraq.

First of all, it is ridiculous to compare the 90's with our our current adventure. Clinton was handed justification for war in the middle east on several occasions and he always rejected it. In fact, the right wing has had a field day with the topic. Bush, on the other hand, came into office just itching for all out war in the middle east.

Second, you are portraying Iraq under Hussein as some sort of ordinary country. It was not. While there were some folks who raised questions about Iraq's military capabilities, there is no doubt that Iraq was still a very dangerous and dominant country in that part of the world. Almost everyone believed that Iraq had much more military capability at the time of 9/11. If the sanctions had been lifted, what do you think would have been the result? Shangrala? Auschwitz is more probable. You state that Iraq was not a threat to anyone (in capitol letters, no less). Well, that is not the way any of the other counties in the region viewed them. Iraq was, and still is one of the largest, richest, most populist and most aggressive countries in the middle east.

Now, none of this justified an invasion of Iraq, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq, he simply maintained the pressure in the hopes of an internal coup. Didn't happen, but it was worth a try cause it beats all out war (as we have seen). If the government of Iraq wanted everyone happy, healthy and wealthy, then they had more than enough resources to achieve that goal. The deaths in Iraq before 2002 shouldn't have occurred at all. The truth is that Hussein actually wanted the suffering that his people endured, because a) he didn't care about Iraqi's and b) it made him a martyr.

Also, the sanctions and many of the deaths after the war were a result of the effects of the first gulf war, again something that Clinton was not responsible for. While I am not blinded by Clinton's conservative side, I reject completely the notion that he has the blood of Iraqi children on his hands. Shrub, and his father, on the other hand are literally swimming in blood.

Look, being President of the United States is very difficult job. You don't simply represent the interests of liberal pin heads like myself or esteemed progressives like yourself. A President also must balance the interests of big business (yes, they do run the economy and provide us with slavery, I mean jobs), the military, and lots of other folks who don't usually agree with us. If we think that junior should consider the interests and feelings of all americans, even us, than so should Clinton consider the concerns of all americans and american institutions. It's a very tough balancing act; one that I know I could never do. So, while I have many regrets about positions taken by Clinton over the years, the bottom line is that he did a better job of being President than anyone else has in my lifetime. And blaming him for the actions of dictators is wrong and a red herring.

Let's try a little conjecture: if the sanctions had been lifted in the early to mid 1990's what do you think would have happened in Iraq?

...for nearly a decade after Iraq complied with U.N. disarmament mandates, mostly just to save himself the political embarassment of lifting them and dealing with Saddam Hussein. Scott Ritter has discussed this at length, so I'll leave it to you to read it yourself. During that time an estimated ONE MILLION IRAQI CIVILIANS died of hunger, disease, and other causes directly resulting from the embargo and the associated military harassment (e.g. bombing). Over 500,000 were children. When asked about the deaths of half a million children, Madelaine Albright, then Clinton's ambassador to the U.N., famously replied "that's a price that we think is worth paying."

Just so there's no ambiguity here, estimates of Iraqi civilians killed during Bush's invasion and occupation run from 30,000 to 100,000. Estimates of the number killed during Clinton's embargo and bombing are in the range of 10 times that number.

At some point the enablers of Fascism and the apologists who trundle after them are just as guilty as the little murderers hatching plots from their undisclosed bunker locations.

Tony Blair had the choice of siding with civilization and the established order of International Law that has cost us millions of lives in sacrifice to create, or the choice of prostituting Britain to the American cock for his own narrow benefit. If he had refused Bush's overtures, the Atlantic Alliance would have been far better served and everyone on this side would come to understand that he had chosen the right. Instead of choosing the right, he couldn't whore himself and his country out fast enough.He should go on trial.Clinton is scarcely any better since if Blair enables Nazis, Clinton makes excuses for him.

21. How dare Clinton not bash and trash-talk Blair like we wiser folks!

Blair did what he did because Blair is a weak human being! A disgrace! A horror of an individual! No, there are no grey areas - it's all dumb them and wise us! We know better because we sit here and read Internet articles all day!

One thing has to be kept in mind though - Clinton is good friends with Blair. Both were from relative moderate wings of their parties and were elected at the same time (or within a few years of each other). Both transformed their parties to some extent as well (though I'm sure most of us would say for the worse). Though I would say that Blair has over the last few years takena hard turn to the right.

Still, I would rather have had him respond by saying, "You'll have to ask him that" instead of some bullshit "keeping the alliance" excuse.

Yes, the actions of the UK are just as reprehensible as our own, but it's likely that Blair had a staring role in a shotgun wedding. A few things that we do know:

A) England's economy is very dependent on the US, much more so than Germany or France.B) Blair worked very well with Clinton on reducing world tensionsC) Leaders of countries make many life and death decisionsD) Blair is looking out for England, and only EnglandE) The US, under * has had the most aggressive and retaliatory foreign policy since Teddy Roosevelt

So while Blair could have made a courageous moral stand, his country (and his political party) would have suffered greatly had he acted differently. From all that I have read, Blair consistently tried to talk reason to the Bush mis-administration in private. He may be the only outside voice georgie-boy has ever had to listen to. Hell, he hung up on his own father rather than listen to any other opinions, so perhaps it's a good thing - who knows where we'd be without Blairs (weak) foot on the brake?

He got them when he privitized englands intelligency agency and gave it to them. Being on Carlyles board of directors may have swayed him.

Bust tried to privitize our intelligence agency. Wonder which company he was going to give it to.

Either way Carlyle profits in time of war with united defense and many many other contracting groups they start and disband as contracts become available - ie the it group that cleaned up anthrax became the shaw group that helped cleaned up katrina, both part of the carlyle group.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.